city better off than i found it. hopefully we can do that here in washington as well. i do come to washington after serving as a mayor. just about every mayor in and every mayor can talk about a business considering his or her city with hundreds and sometimes thousands of jobs in the balance and invariablely the business representative will bring up a road or a curb cut or a bridge that needs to be built or repaired to make the site work or under the best of circumstances, the existence of one of those assets that makes the investment sensible. and so i want to start out by assuring you that i understand that first-rate infrastructure

and job growth go hand in hand and i've seen it in my own experience. and so i want to begin today with a statement of the obvious. that the united states faces a massive infrastructure deficit. and if this deficit is not addressed, it will stunt the recovery we've begun and cripple our economy. now, i don't want to tell the people in the room how big this infrastructure deficit is. you're moving goods around america all the time and the people that work in your businesses need efficient ways to get to work. but imagine how much harder that task is becoming. when as a nation we have 100,000 bridges old enough to

collect medicare. when we've fallen 20 spots, according to the economic forum, 20 spots over the last 10 years when it comes to the quality of our infrastructure, putting us just behind barbados, a country that has just one airport. it becomes more difficult when we hear the american society of civil engineers point out that without investment, deficiencies in our nation's infrastructure will cost businesses more than $1 trillion every year in loss sales. and further they say, and i'm quoting, that if current trends are not reversed, then our economy will take a $3.1 trillion hit before the decade is out which is the equivalent

of wiping out the economic impact of an entire state like the state of virginia. it gets more complicated when you consider a number of commentators are talking about at happens at the end of fiscal year 2014 when the ghway trust fund runs out of its ability to stay solvent. little to some of them know -- although i think folks are starting to realize this -- that the highway trust fund is on track to bounce checks before f.y. 2015 begins, as soon, perhaps, as this august. but, again, you all know this and that's one of the reasons why your president, tom donahue, rightly urged congress to stabilize the highway trust

fund just a few weeks ago. i'm grateful to him and to you for stepping up and ringing the alarm bell on this growing crisis in america. that's also one of the reasons why we at u.s..put a ticker up -- u.s. d.o.t. put a ticker up on the website on how soon we're reaching insolvency and that's also why i am here today. because we need you to join us in raising the alarm bell and calling congress to act. for years, the growing infrastructure deficit has been an issue akin to termites in the basement. slowly eating away at our foundation. and now it is a wolf at the door, and when we add all of

this up, crumbling infrastructure, significant new capacity needs, economic costs associated with not addressing these needs, congress either unwilling or unable to deal with business until emergencies loom, a highway trust fund fast approaching insolvency, a surface transportation bill close to retiring and the rest of the world running faster towards building 21st century infrastructure than we are. transportation, and specifically, failing to tackle the infrastructure deficit, is the next crisis we're heading towards. now, when i mention this looming crisis outside the beltway, when i talk to mayors or governors or business eaders or labor or n.g.o., folks, they are astonished.

their reaction to me is, how can we -- they will tell me -- kill the golden goose that's laid so many golden eggs? like the transcontinental railroad, like the interstate highway system. some of the most heavily used transit systems in the world e right here in the u.s. built by us and our -- a significant legacy that we owe a duty to future generations to continue. these mechanisms day after day, year after year get products and people where we need them and they keep the economic engine of america going. so two things -- one of two things can happen right now. the first is that we could push

america into a larger pothole, a bigger infrastructure deficit by neglecting to handle our business as a nation. the second is that we can pull together and drive ourselves out of that pothole, address the funding gap and put our infrastructure on a sustainable course. and by the way, if we work our way out of that pothole, it will not be a democratic success or a republican success. t will be an american success. now, i have reason for optimism , despite this dire picture i'm painting. it's too early to be pessimistic. for one thing, it's good and constructive that members of congress are now offering ideas about how to fund our transportation system. it's encouraging that chairman

shuster of the house transportation and infrastructure committee has said that he hopes to have a bill out before the august recess. it's encouraging when senators boxer and vitter have agreed they want to have a bill by april, and i'm also encouraged by our administration and the president for putting ideas on the table, too, including in his state of the union speech when he put forward a proposal to fund surface transportation with the savings from corporate tax reform. e truth is our problem isn't math. 's that for a generation the concept of government spending has been under attack and it's bleeding into our approach on an issue that's traditionally been bipartisan. but you and i both know that

spending on transportation is really investing in our country. it's economy, it's people. this is a rube con-- rubicon that we've got to figure out a way to cross and we got to get there fast. how do we get there? first, we need to aim at the right target. for years our national dialogue is focused on how to get the highway trust fund leveled off. to translate that into business terms, we've been trying to reach the same level of sales revenue and expenditures as the last year instead of growing revenue expenditures to meet customer demand. the plain fact is that the gas tax is spending off less and less revenue. meanwhile, we're anticipating 100 million new people in the u.s. by 2050 and we're going to

have to move four billion tons of -- more tons of freight by 2050 as well, which i'm told is the equivalent of 40,000 washington monuments. less revenue, more people, more freight, more gridlock, that is not a formula for success. so in my view, we should stop aiming just to get the highway trust fund level again. we should aim to cut into a bigger piece of the infrastructure deficit by investing more and investing more now. to put this in perspective, the american society of civil engineers has estimated that our overall infrastructure needs as a country are $3.6 trillion by the year 2020.

now, that is an all-in number. it includes more than just transportation, infrastructure, but it's a magnitude far greater than our investments. further estimates say that we need more than $70 billion on an annual basis just to bring our highways up to a state of good repair. and if you think about it, every year we wait, it's compounding the investment that our children and our grandchildren will need to make and passing that along to another generation flies in the face of what every generation of americans have done, which is to leave things better off for those who follow us. second, we need to be reminded that in the case of infrastructure, fiscal -- the fiscally responsible path is to invest now, not later. yesterday, i stood with vice

president biden in southwestern illinois to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the american recovery and reinvestment act. this act made the largest investment in american infrastructure since eisenhower built the interstate highway system almost 60 years ago. and it turned out that making investments at na time, rather than putting -- at that time, rather than putting them off, was actually the right thing to do. because while we all remember those years, as difficult as they were, the time period between 2008 and 2010 was an incredibly cheap time to pay for infrastructure. the cost of construction had dropped by 18% and has risen since. and to put it bluntly, we got more infrastructure projects for the dollar as a result of making the investments at that

time. and you all know the time value of money being what it is, the same project today pushed out five years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years becomes exponentially ore expensive. unfortunately, given the picture i've painted of our funding situation, the increasingly more typical example is the investment we weren't able to make due to a lack of funding. i'll give you an example. in 2009, norfolk southern, one of our class 1 railroad companies, decided it wasn't cost-effective to maintain 135 miles of track they owned in michigan. so the state of michigan decided to try to step in and buy that track because it was part of a crucial artery connecting detroit and chicago.

good idea. the problem was the funding wasn't available to acquire that track in 2009. it took almost four years to secure the funding, and by that time the tracks had been neglected for so long that the repairs costs hundreds of millions of more dollars than they would have if michigan had been able to make that investment in 2009. that's just one example. there are hundreds, if not thousands, around the country. at the federal level, it is perhaps noteworthy that funding challenges like this -- it probably isn't as noteworthy that this type of funding challenge exists. it's called of balled together with all the other challenges we face. but the cumulative effect of years of instability and uncertainty is now creating a massive chilling effect at the state and local levels. there are literally projects that aren't being put on the

board because folks don't know what world they're walking into as soon as next year. in fact, two weeks ago i was in missouri and learned that the state department of transportation there has stopped investing at projects that build new capacity in part because of unpredictable funding. and then there's a small community in texas, i'm told, that began digging up their roads and turning them back into gravel because they couldn't afford the maintenance . in america? folks, that's not who we are. we are a nation that finds a way, and over the next several months, that must be our mission. third, as part of our case for more investment to tackle our

infrastructure deficit, we also need to double down on reducing costs, just like any business would. as executives, you all know that sometimes when you have a low-performing asset you can't pass the entire cost to fixing that on to your customers to get it fix. sometimes you have to cut costs to make room for the investments you really need. case ere's an illust tiff -- illustrious case and i'll use ford. they were on the brink. they didn't know it but the company was about to lose $12 billion that year and another $2 billion the year after. their new c.e.o. was tasked with restructuring the company ahead of and in the midst of

the greatest financial crisis since the great depression. nun was certainly part of the solution, and in fact in 2006 ford put up nearly all of its assets as collateral, including its logo, and secured a $23.6 billion loan. but that wasn't ford's only problem. it was also where the cash was flowing. for almost 30 years, ford had been known for its pickup trucks, its big cars that right before and during the recession few people were buying. so ford got smart. they streamlined, they shifted their portfolio towards smaller, more economical cars and they made sure that the entire company and all of its employees knew what they were doing and why. every employee carried a one ford mission statement in their pocket, and they've turned

things around. there are lots of lessons to be learned from ford and many other of our automakers and other folks in the transportation industry, for sure, but the necessity of investing wisely even if it means rethinking how you do business is one of the most important and relevant ones to s. while in transportation, we should take that lesson seriously. not only do we need funding, but we need to, as my grandfather would say, leave no stone unturned, to squeeze every productive ounce out of our transportation dollars we can. and that's one reason why i don't think we should simply let the funding questions alone dominate the debate about transportation this year. we have a surface

transportation bill that will expire october 1, and we need to go further than just technical corrections to mapp 21. we need a bill that reshapes the transportation landscape for the 21st century, building on mapp 21 but going further. we need a transportation system that is smart enough to plan along economic lines, not just political lines. we need to expand our ability to harmonize federal permitting process and incentivize states to do the same. and i believe we can do so without jeopardizing the environment or project integrity. and in the process we will save valuable time and money. moreover, when gogh so we create a more conducive environment for public-private partnerships. a recent mckenzie study found, looking at the globe that

countries can obtain the same amount of infrastructure for 40% less spending. just by adopting best practices. now, sure we have examples of best practices in the u.s., but i know we can do better. and so just for the sake of argument, let's -- let's say we could only achieve half of that 40% savings. if you apply 20% savings to our last funding bill, map-21, that would have equaled $21 billion. that's a lot of additional projects that could be happening all across america. now, the truth is we can't do this work by ourselves. our partners at the state and local levels are critical to this effort. we have an agency with a $70 billion-plus budget, but one lesser known fact about d.o.t.

is that about $40 billion of that goes directly to the states. we cannot be efficient if our state and local partners aren't efficient. and so in addition to stabilizing the trust fund, new investments could introduce new competitive programs that reward innovation and adoption of best practices at the state and local levels. by taking this approach, we will dramatically increase the value proposition of federal dollars by encouraging investments that help whole economic regions, improve mobility and quality of life. now, you all know how much this matters, and i want to in closing finish where i started out. because somewhere in america right this second, as sure as we're sitting in this room, there is a mayor or a governor or a county commissioner or in

some cases all three of them sitting down with some business representative who's talking about bringing jobs back to the u.s.a., bringing them right into their community, but they eed an access road or a bridge or some rail built into the right place. and if that happens, hundreds, if not thousands of people will start working again. i've seen it happen in my prior life as a mayor, and i see opportunities for this all across the country. in dubuque, iowa, dubuque, iowa, u.s. d.o.t. helped redesign the roads in part of the city where old mills and factories laid vacant. and when we did that, i.b.m.

moved in and gave those old .actories a new lease on life you all know this. you get it. you understand it. and the chamber, as i mentioned, has been one of the loudest voices calling for an increase in the gas tax to fund surface transportation. your president, tom donahue, has been a very vocal leader on this issue prodding congress to be courageous. now, d.o.t., we happen to believe we can pay for infrastructure a different way, but i would much rather see a national debate about how we get there than whether. that's why i'm glad tom is standing up, and we absolutely agree that congress is going to have to show a little political courage to fix this problem.

their courage increases when their core constituencies, like the folks in this room, tell them it's ok to figure this out . it's actually the fiscally responsible thing to do. we need you to speak up. all of you can play a role in putting our transportation system on a more certain and sustainable course, and we do it by letting congress know that a one or two-year band-aid won't cut it this time. tell them what's at stake for you. tell them what's at stake for your employees and the products you sell. tell congress to get to yes. i know they care about your priorities. i know they care about your companies. i know they care about the jobs you create, and they care when you tell them yourselves. so our mission is pretty clear. we've got to create the context for a solution this year.

i'll be committing malpractice if i didn't tell you that, but the truth of the matter is we got a lot of work to do and you're a critical partner in that work. thank you very much. it's great to be with you. [applause] >> the secretary is willing to take a couple of questions this morning, so let me ask you to do this. we should have roving microphones in the room. raise your hand if you got the microphone in your hand. please flag down one of the people holding that microphone, and then when you stand up to ask your question, as tom donahue would say, tell us who you are so we know what you really want. no one has a -- no one has a question for the secretary of transportation? all right, mr. secretary. i have a question for you. >> all right. >> d.o.t. has been doing a lot

of work on connecting the economy with transportation, especially in the area of freight. tell us a little bit about what the department is doing and what your vision is for making sure we can move goods in, out and through this country efficiently. >> that's a great question. sounds like you thought about that one before. so one of the really smart parts of map-21 was the requirement that u.s. d.o.t. go out and pull stakeholders together to develop a national freight plan, and we've got a committee of 47 people from all walks of life, all parts of the transportation ecosystem who are involved in helping us develop this plan. the vision for it is a multimodal plan, looking at how

freight actually moves in this country, where some of the gaps are, what kinds of targeted investments would be useful in easing the flow of commerce across our country. and i would say that, you know, once we have done that analysis and it's in the works, it will probably be ready before the end of the year, once that work is done, we will have identified, you know, more or less where some of the gaps are in the system. from there, the challenge is, how do you get those gaps addressed? that's a place where i think a strong competitive program that encourage not just one-off projects but ones that had real scale would be useful, and that may involve multiple states coming together to solve a particular problem, whether it's rail or highway or

whatever, and i think that's what i'd like to see. so we'll continue conversing about this as we go through the development process on it, but that's my view. >> we do have a question here. stand up and introduce yourself, please. >> thank you, mr. secretary. garrett. one of the things you came across as a mayor and i know in north carolina, when you're trying to get these pro >> jekts off the ground, is the issue of permitting and streamlining, and map-21 did some of that, but how would you, taking that mayorial experience and the business experience look at some of the issues we have with environmental and permitting and streamlining when we're trying to get some of the these high job-producing projects off the ground? > no, it's a great question. you know, i had a similar situation as a mayor. we had a city that permitted

everything outside the building and a county that permitted everything inside the building. and the two groups of people that did that didn't sit next to each other, there was no common platform for those things to get resolved and a lot of the review processes were see quention in nature and -- sequential in nature and not concurrent in nature so they weren't doing the same work at the same time which meant it took longer. one of the things that i think in the media ized and the political world is how much president obama cares about, you know, making sure government is working well and doing everything we can to ensure that on an interagency basis we're getting things done as effective and efficiently as

possible. the truth is that on a given project, there will be a d.o.t. review, there will be an army corps review, sometimes a coast guard review and lots of different agencies involved and they don't all roll up to the same agency leader. and what i can tell you is that is a focus for the president. t is a focus that i have and we're looking at ways we can get things done even without congressional action to get things more streamlined. there is good news. the number of categorical exclusions, the nepa more projects are moving faster. the ones that are not moving faster are the big ones, and we have a responsibility to make sure we get as much done as possible. i would like to see us cutting

the time as close to half as we could get in terms of projects through our system. ould get in terms of getting projects moved through our system. >> great. next question. >> mr. secretary, what's your personal take on the keystone pipeline? >> that's a very good question. i do have a view on that. my view is that secretary kerry is going to be a great figure to resolve that one for us. >> other questions. they see a couple of hands over there. give these ladies a moment to get through the crowd this morning. >> thank you very much for

participating. i'm wondering, given the challenges that any administration has to get proposals through omb and given the fact that senator boxer has announced a very accelerated schedule for moving forward on map 21 reauthorization, how does the department anticipate making its priorities known to the senator and to the committee on both the house and senate side? it seems unrealistic to think that the department can actually put together a complete reauthorization proposal. perhaps some sort of an outline? how do you envision that going forward? >> well, in the past, a lot of the policy frameworks the administration has had on transportation have come through the budget process and -- but i

wouldn't count us out. i wouldn't count us out. that's all i'll say right now. >> we have a question in the back corner there. >> mr. secretary, joe sculley with the truck renting and leasing association. you said the d.o.d. believes there's a different way to pay this. can you elaborate on other ways you have in mind? >> basic outline, you know, there's been some fairly substantial work that chairman camp of the house ways and means committee and chairman baucus, former chair of the senate finance committee, have been doing on corporate tax reform, and if you look at those proposals, there's a -- there's actually a -- a savings -- or a dividend, if you will, that

comes through, through doing that, and we believe that some part of that dividend could be used to support infrastructure over a multiyear time frame. there's paper on those ideas and concepts that have been produced out of congress. and we think it's a good framework for getting past some of the gridlock that's been in place over this issue for a while. >> mr. secretary, i know your time with us is up. thank you so much f cabineter member of the tom vill sack spoke in and annual outlook forum hosted by his apartment. he spoke about his appreciation for farmers and their work in the agriculture industry.

x there has to be much greater appreciation for producers feedally and for those who us. every single person in this audience who is not a farmer has the luxury not to be a former in this country. -- a farmer in this country. the reason is we do not have to produce the food for a families. we do not have to grow it. we transfer that spots below the december the us, and we are happy to do that because we have the most productive farmers in the world. we do not appreciate that. we do not appreciate the fact ort i can be a lawyer someone could be a doctor or someone could run a seed company or some goods start an entrepreneurial active he is because we do not have to spend the effort to raise the food as our forefathers, foremothers used to.

the dialogue has to be captured in a way that is not a criticism. it is simply an educational opportunity. the one thing i want to note about the panel is if this panel had taken place five or 10 years ago or 20 years ago, you would not see the diversity on this panel that you see today. you just would not. and that is something that agriculture needs to understand and embrace, that diversity, whether it is in crop reduction or land-use war in producers is not a threat. it is something to be celebrated, to be encouraged, especially if we are going to convince young people to get into this business. >> there was part of an event today held by the agriculture department. you can see the entire form at www.c-span.org. here's a look at our schedule.

eastern, journalists discuss the edward snowden story. on c-span2, authors who have written about clinical ideologies. on c-span3, american history to , with a look at the legacy of lyndon baines johnson. withnight we will talk senators about their personal lives, careers, and facts about their names. eitkamp.heidi hik >> i grew up in a small catholic community, and when i grew up that two classes, whether first or second or third or fourth, were all in the same classroom, and at that time there was a small group of girls. there were a lot of marys. there was a mary catherine.

me mary.s never called my name was cathy. in third grade she would rename me. she was a voracious reader and had already read hundreds of books by the time she was in "heidi" wasand one of her favorite books. >> then senator john thune. my grandfather and great uncle came from norway in 1906. when they got to us island they did not the words except for apple pie and coffee. to change their name because they thought it would be too difficult to spell and pronounce. their name in norway was gjel svik. name because they thought it would be too difficult to spell and pronounce. their name in norway was gjel svik. when they got jealous island,

they asked them to change the name, they picked the name of the farm where they lived in norway called thune. they got through ellis island and had a sponsor in south dakota and they came out to work on the railroads. >> and american profile interviews tonight starting at 9:30 eastern on c-span, c-span radio, and www.c-span.org. defense apartment officials released a report today on the use of broadband spectrum, which the pentagon depends on for various let terry and national security operations. >> thank you for coming today. taki androduce teri

fred moorefield. there will beng an opening statement on the importance of this strategy. individual for questions and follow-up questions. a personike introduce who is with the office of spectrum management. he is going to make reef remarks about the federal government's spectrum efforts. >> thank you for inviting me to come today. ntia is the president's principal advisor on telecommunications policy, responsible for managing the government's use of the spectrum. we want to start by saying we lookud dod's efforts to toward the future and look

forward to continued collaboration with other agencies as we explore new and innovative approaches to meet the demand for spectrum. dod recognized using its own requirements amidst the growing commercial and consumer demand will require cooperation. a key focus of this plan is to establish goals and objectives to develop systems that are efficient, flexible, and adaptable in their use of the spectrum. recognizing the important role that spectrum place in continued innovation, job creation, and economic growth, the administration is moving aggressively to enhance spectrum efficiency and enable access to more spectrum or consumer services and applications. the longer-term spectrum needs for government agencies and industry alike can only be met

through spectrum sharing, and we are looking for top to bottom commitment from all stakeholders to make it happen. we greatly appreciate dod's commitment to that end. thank you. >> thank you. thank you very much for being here today and for your opening remarks. toare excited to be able roll out an effort that is something that the department has been working on for quite a of you maymany actually have had the opportunity to hear about this effort, although its evolution -- and we are excited to announce it today. i would like to start with a reference back to the importance of this strategy for dod. karl laid out the importance of our collaboration and our contribution to the national policy. it is important for us to focus today on dod and our

ever-widening and expanding use of spectrum and therefore the importance of having a long-term strategy that allows us to both fit with dod's needs and ensure we are meeting our own needs, but also fitting with national strategy. the department of defense air land, mayor time and cyberspace operations are fundamentally dependent on electromagnetic spectrum. all our joint functions, our ability to fight, our movement and maneuver, fires, the man and control, intelligence, reduction, and sustainment our compost with systems that depend on spec written. the safety and security of the u.s. citizens, the effectiveness of our u.s. combat forces, and the lives of u.s. military members dependent on spectrum access more than ever. to date we unveil our electronic spectrum strategy which first

and foremost addresses the ever-increasing need for spectrum to achieve national security goals. . would like to pause those of us on the stage are office, but cio's it is important for us to know that the strategy does not ciostitute a dod- strategy. it constitutes a strategy that has contributions from all the military services, our departments, and agencies, and they will be actively involved as we talk about our implementation and rollout plan. equally as important as our national security group, the strategy addresses short and long-term spectrum challenges as it relates to the growing u.s. demand for wireless rock band services. to achieve the allen's required andeen national security economic growth, dod will continue to work in close collaboration with federal regulatory agencies and policymakers, including ntia,

the federal communications commission, and the white house office of science and technology policy as well as with commercial industry. together we must identify ways to make spectrum more available for commercial use and find technologies that enhance spectrum sharing all the while dod accesses spectrum where and when needed to ensure our mission's success. the dod electronic spectrum strategy provides guidance for current and long-term initiatives to ensure our toitary has spectrum access meet objectives in the national military strategy and the primary missions listed in the strategic guidance. specifically, the strategy identifies what must be accomplished by goals and objectives to achieve this vision. emphasizing promising technologies that are spectrum it addresses improving integration of dod spectrum activities, sharpening

our ability to assess and respond to spectrum with regulatory changes and identifying key policy and governance issues. i would like to walk through the three goals of the strategy and then open it up to your questions. really tor one is continue to improve technology in dod spectrum-dependent systems. demand, the fighters' strategy bus first goal for quite a blueprints for improving technology in our systems by becoming more efficient, flexible, and adaptable. our systems will be better prepared to meet the demands of modern war fighting. this creates opportunities to utilize spectrum that is less congested him adopt emotional services, and technologies where suitable, and in public spectrum sharing technologies where feasible. number two, dod

spectrum-based operations must be in the booth with and adjust to the spectrum environment as it changes. for dod, operational agility begins with the acquisition process. as result in the early planning stages for a new system, spectrum management considerations, domestically and internationally, must be taken into account. spectrum managers must have the capability to accurately predict and assess the spectral and fire it, including on a near ra basis.e goal number three, we believe it critical that we enhance our participation in the policy discussions affront. spectrum regulatory and policy impact dod spectrum

access, domestically and internationally. effective engagement in the development of policies helps us to better influence new regulatory developments in a way that enhances sharing opportunities and increases the agility of our spectrum use. to this end, the strategy's third goal recognizes the need to be proactive to assess, contribute, and adjust to proposed policy changes. what is the way ahead? the release of this strategy is the first step. the strategy and the associated roadmap and action plan will be updated periodically to reflect learned, clearly the changing environment, and our changing needs. this effort kicks off a multi-year effort that will require alignment of our existing processes and super decisions over the future of key systems and capabilities. costs will be incorporated across the enterprise in many

next fews over the years. over the next six months we will planop an implementation that includes a governance structure, a roadmap, and action plan that will chart our way to meeting the strategy's vision. these will lay out the next steps, including timelines and detailed action to move forward with the strategic goals and objectives. the spectrum future laid out in the strategy is old. the process will be intense and by its very nature iterative, because dod systems are designed to operate for decades. installation of spectrum-efficient technologies for military use takes years. the strategies and the planning necessary to meet our goals require us to take that up front look and in sure that we are direct in our activities over the longer term.

as a result the strategy's success will be measured over the long term as systems are replaced with more militarily effective and efficient technology. it is clear that our continued use and reliance on spectrum requires no less. beh this strategy, dod must a responsible steward of the spectrum essential to our operations, while working collaboratively to meet the growing demands of the citizens that we serve. >> [indiscernible] can you give us a sense of how much the spectrum will be shared with industry? if you do not know, how far away are you from knowing that? how much will be freed up? onwe are working right now -- and the reason we are not giving you a specific number is we are working right now very closely with ntia on meeting

their goal and the president's goal of making 500 megahertz available, and so our actions right now are direct it in that way. there are any number of studies going on. what i can do is speak about one give youand let fred perspective on one of the most recent areas that we have been working on in the industry, and i think we have had a successful result. >> an example, you're familiar 1755-1850 proposal. what we are proposing to share and we have a combination of sharing relocation and proposal so that proposal, we are going to share that with commercial industry folks. that is our proposal. thank you. are announcing an intent

to share bandwidth. you are not announcing that cell phone, mobile carriers and other haveests use that now bandwidth available to them that they are freeing up? >> we need to be careful about the words that you were using in terms of intent versus whether we are announcing that. what we do is again to provide our information to ntia, working with fcc. sec is ultimately responsible for making the and announcement and the way ahead in terms of working with industry around that proposal. , but wenk fine line want to be clear that for that 25 megahertz, that is an effort that we are working with ntia, and fcc will make a final announcement on that. you have a figure in terms of what dod plans to invest this year or the years ahead in terms

ems?larging the [indiscernible] >> i think what we can do oiis give you some idea ems? [indiscernible] >> on particularly as it relates to transition planning. youlenge we have in giving efficient spectrum is there is not a pure spectrum investment. the strategy is to lay out how we are influencing all of our programs that are dependent on spectrum. to ensure that we are more flexible as opposed to simply alone and spectrum talking about how we are changing that. perhaps the best way to answer that question would be to focus on some of our transition planning efforts. , if you further on that look at where we are today in the strategy document, vision, it is an objective to be reactive.tive versus

i will be followed up by the plan that will address the question you are running right now, to build out the plan and build out with the services the exact milestones we are going to go down to do that particular part. there is positive ones where we will spend more money, and that will break it out over time as to what the exact -- we will have to do from tenants -- from an investment perspective. >> thank you for speaking with us. you mentioned in your opening remarks short and long-term spectrum challenges as it relates to the alone and talking about how we are changing that. growing demand for wireless. what are the short and long-term challenges, in layman's terms? >> it is always difficult when we talk in broad terms. the us way to describe that would be for the general to give you statistics on our growing

spectrum need, because i think sometimes while we are trying to needs, what gets lost is our growing need for spectrum. then perhaps general wheeler could give you examples of areas that are some short-term requirement as well as long term. >> it is a balance between commercial needs and the need to national security and that aspect. towe can give you some ideas put in layman's term, in the 1990's we used to have 90 megahertz of actual bandwidth that was used for 12,000 troops. in today's timeframe we are megahertz for 3500 troops. you can see both the commercial side and the federal side it is growing. that is the reason we are trying to make sure we are proactive versus reactive because we realize we're going to do this correctly with industry as ardor -- as partner, to make sure we are doing the sharing piece

correctly, so we both have a plan of action going forward to balance the national security needs as well as the needs for the commercial side to keep us competitive around the world. does that help? >> what are the risks, the challenges? >> i would argue so far we have worked very hard with industry. i think that allen's has been struck. we should be able to maintain a requirements where we are today, meet the president's executive order garments as well as doing the commercial side of it and moving forward. a constant dance between those things to make sure that is correct, but we have managed that. that is the reason why it is important to the plan because we have to figure out where we are going in the future and we will do that in congestion with industry. train ourmple, we pilots in the u.s. and we are very heavily spectrum dependent in order to be able to do that training.

in anfact we are environment where we have interference in the spectrum that we use, we either have to limit the amount of training or we can have instances where we will have interference during the time the training is taking place. -- one of thef a examples that particularly has been under discussion in the 1755-1850 band. >> some of the newer weapons programs already adapting to what you are talking about. for example, the f-35, where they are going to have to be retroactive steps taken to ensure new systems are going to be as adapted and fixable as you're saying. >> it is a combination of both. some of them -- some radios are

built into the system which allows you to change frequencies. others are ones we were too. an example, with the air combat training system, that was on a fixed frequency that we used in aircraft, one that we worked hard on with industry to figure out how we're going to blend that and the changes that are coming up. it will be a combination of and we are meeting that with mposost new systems today. older legacy systems, that is where we have to work through on the implementation. older programs, the older systems, there will have to be investment in some cases? givesolutely, but i will you a case for that is not true, on the satellite type. we're doing some of the older systems that have been up for 30

years and are still out there, it is difficult to change a transmitter out of orbit. bottom line, we will do some geographic sharing so we do not have to end up replacing that and cause a requirements of the taxpayers. those are the systems we will not change out, but in some legacy systems we will have to make those changes. i am no technology expert, but my concern is with the new technology, with the widening of the spectrum, is there going to problems?ber security >> that is also part of when that youeapons systems make sure you put in the cyber protections. i do not see any changes in the actual cyber security risks. you have to continually change with the threat to protect those particular systems, but i do not

think that is a specificdependent threat or risk, if that helps. >> [indiscernible] you guys are talking about adapting, but this seems like this is a future where the dod might have to give up spectrum. explain the thinking behind that and if that is true, and that is the future? >> let me answer the question in a couple of ways. first of all, we are not making the assumption that the dod will have to make do with less spectrum. are the challenges is the growing need for spectrum. with the fit our need

growing need on the commercial industry side? there are a number of ways to do that, certainly is not a question of all or nothing. it is one of the things that we are looking at and very interested in where the commercial sector is going because we have the opportunity to use commercial devices and actually leverage those technologies for our use. it also means that we need to be more efficient in the way that we are using spectrum. again, with the limited resource we are able to accomplish what our mission needs are as well as being able to satisfy the commercial industry needs as it relates to spectrum. i would not necessarily think of it, and we don't think of it as an either or where it is that how we we collectively work together.

>> can you give us an idea of how you go about being efficient? giving us the first question about numbers and how much will you have to share in the future. how do you go about doing that. what is it you have to share that you don't share now. >> when we talk about efficiency, the question really existingne within the

spectrum that we utilize, whether we utilize a exclusively or whether we share it. the question is how do we make sure that as the technologies evolve, we are utilizing those moreologies that are much focused in terms of the amount of spectrum we use. this is really the area where we are very dependent upon where technology will be going and why we are very interested in where the commercial sector is going because they have some of the same challenges about being able to efficiently use spectrum. whether that is using less spectrum for a particular operation or that we can do it with less interference, that is really the challenge for us. i will turn to general wheeler for the specific examples. the other piece that you talked about in terms of whether this is the challenge of what is our

percentage of how much less we we areng to use, again, not actually looking at it in that way. from our perspective, we have a set of missions that we have today. we have a set of missions that we will continue to have both from a national defense standpoint but also remember that these spectrums are very important with things like our support of natural disaster .elief certainly we can give you some examples of how this was important in support of our seen him he relief. we have a mission, how do we make the best use of spectrum in order to be able to accomplish that mission. it might be a percentage change. i would come back and foot

stomp. it is also our collaborative effort with industry. it is not necessarily a percentage change but how are we able to accomplish our missions as well as giving the commercial industry folks an opportunity to really leverage what we are >> i willove ahead finish a couple of examples. if you think of the u.s., the small unmanned aerial vehicles that we have had. in 2002, we had about 167. many of these were digital. the bandwidth required is much larger than the ones that we are changing out in the transition plans to make them digital. that makes it more efficient. dynamic sharing, you can put usingn a smaller space by

some technologies that we are testing right now with industry so that you can put more in less space and have everybody working together as a team and not interfering with each other. it is a good example of the sharing site as well as changing out systems to make them more spectrally efficient and more agile. line,t the bottom vacating some of the spectrum is not necessarily what you were going to do then. you might have vacated some spectrum but you might find that you don't need to. >> what we have found is that the best plans are combining, vacating, sharing, and compression. it depends on what industry needs. sometimes we are willing to vacate an area and industry does not have the need for that area. that allows us to go for compression, etc.. people wouldat the

be going with bottles of champagne. is the message here that you won't be vacating? >> i don't think that is the message. it is that we will combine the different methods in the future. that is a way that both industry and dod understand that that is where we are going in the future. it is a combination. generalou characterize the results of the tests you have seen so far in dynamic sharing and whether that is viable? that in thet beginning of some of the ways we were looking to move towards the future. i would argue it is promising a final fort have large-scale. i think that that is the next step. we are working to see where we can go with that in the future. small-scale, that has not been done yet.

the radars, are those the main issue? most of the bandwidth we are talking about has been by the radar systems? >> there aren't many systems, not just radar. there is a whole group of systems depending upon the bandwidth and the part of the country. >> there was a mention that there could be a percentage thing or the way in which there is no compos mentis mission. in terms ofeference changing the mission? i'm not sure where you're going. has tothe comments made do with the commercial side. with the give spectrum to the commercial side, as who work in collaboration, there is the

option for us to use the same in a commercial environment. for hand in hand in industry and use that for moving our data back and forth. that is another way to think seen it that we have not before. that is available to the public is also available for the dod to use as we need to with a commercial contract. we have time for one more question. >> in terms of the pentagon's acquisition community and the various models, how will this impact that community in terms of how they approach acquiring the various systems? >> what we are intending is that as we roll out and we see that there are opportunities for these emerging technologies is to ensure that program managers have adequate knowledge of what is available, that we have also asd out guidelines for them

they look at spectrum management. a make spectrum management more critical part, if you will, of our future acquisition programs. again, it is not just a question if we are operating within the dod approved areas of spectrum but also that we are expanding our thought process as it relates to how we will manage spectrum. the other challenge is in the things that general wheeler spoke about which is how do we make sure that we don't have acquisitions that are only specifically targeted at a specific band. we are looking at flexibility across and how do we become more flexible and agile. those are some the things that will be important. >> open architectures and open

systems play a more critical role that that hymnology is not necessarily always applied to inking about how you utilize spectrum and that is why we need to have much more specific directions that really looks at the lifespan of that program, when is that program going to deliver, where do we think the technologies will be, and we are building more flexibility in so that we are not locked into an area of spectrum that may in fact be an area that we would be more broadlyare with the commercial industry. first of all, thank you everyone for your interest. we know this is an issue that is of critical national importance. that is really why we are here from a dod perspective to talk about it. i would like to close with a few points that hopefully you have

drawn from the conversation today. first of all, our concern from a spectrum perspective is to ensurethat dod can mission success and that we are for filling our responsibilities from a national security perspective. having said that, it is important that we are much more proactive as opposed to being reactive to the growing demand tom all of you as it relates spectrum use and what you're going to need in the future. we note that requires thirdly a strong collaboration with industry and other federal partners. particularly interested in working with industry because this isn't really just a discussion around how do we better use federal spectrum or dod utilize spectrum. as general wheeler says, what are the opportunities for dod to take advantage of spectrum which is currently owned and operated by industry?

that is an area that does not get as much discussion. next one is the martial technologies. those technologies are going to be applicable to us just as they are applicable to industry. we are interested in how do we come together and different compression techniques. any number of things that obviously you know as well as i do that this is going to look significantly different from what it does today. finally, i think to several of the points that you raised in the because of our long lead time in actually being able to make major technology shifts, it is important that we have a strategy that is thinking long-term. we have too much equipment and too much capability that really has to be transitioned in a very

thoughtful way so as not to impose a major burden on budgets and a major burden on the taxpayers. really objective is to work collaboratively but also with a mind towards our mission which is really to protect all of our citizens and all of our partners and make sure that all of our men and women in uniform have the capability that they need but are also protected from harm's way. thank you very much for participating with us today. >> if you have follow-up questions, please send them my direction. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] talked about the budget negotiation over the change price index.

here is more. thisn you walk us through theory behind dropping change cpi for the president's budget? is this an acknowledgment that whatever there might have been, that a grand bargain could become first is now gone? >> let me answer that in a couple of different ways. it is important for you and your readers to understand that this offer from the president or mains on the table. you will recall that in the context of the discussions that we have been having with congressional republicans about reducing the deficit that the president put forward some specific ideas about how we can do that in a balanced way. this means that the president put forward ideas that republicans than self-support. they coupled them with some things that the president things will be good policy, things like

closing tax loopholes and using revenue from those tax loopholes. the president was able to put on the table a concrete proposal. unfortunately, republicans refused to even consider the possibility of raising from revenue by closing some loopholes that benefit only the wealthy and well-connected. that is an unfortunate policy choice that republicans themselves have made. the thing that is important to understand is we have made substantial progress in reducing the deficit. there is more that we can do and that is why the offer remains on the table. the deficit has reduced -- has been declining at the fastest rate since the end of world war room and two. -- at the end of world war ii.

the deficit at the end of this will be at less than two percent of gdp. that sounds very technical. an importantit for reason. when democrats and republicans agree that we should work in a bipartisan fashion to examine the proposals, the goal that was identified by simpson bowles was to reduce the deficit as a percentage of gdp to below three percent. what our budget projection shows that over the course of the next 10 years the percentage will actually be below two percent. we have made substantial progress. towelcome opportunities cooperate further and reduce the deficit further. the president believes it is important that we spent some time focusing on what kind of policies that we can put in place.

>> that was a portion of today's briefing at the white house. you can see the entire event any time at c-span.org. here is a look at our primetime schedules. journalists discuss the edward snowden story and the future of their possession. c-span two, authors of books that i've written on political ideologies. tv.ican history theythors of books that have written on political ideologies. >> we will talk to two u.s. senators about the personal lives and their careers. >> i grew up in a very small catholic community. we were all in the same classroom.

there is a small group of girls. betsy, marianne. mary jo who was amazing. there was mary catherine. cathy. friend's name was she decided in the third grade that she would rename me. a voracious reader and had read hundreds of books by the time she was in the third grade. heidi was one of her favorite books. >> later, we will talk with senator john thune about how his grandfather changed the family name. >> my grandfather and great uncle came over from norway. when they got to ellis island, they did not know english. to change thed name because they thought it

would be too difficult to spell and pronounce. they got through ellis island and then they had a sponsor in south dakota and they came out to work on the railroads. tonight, starting at 9:30 eastern on c-span, c-span radio, and on c-span.org. >> on "washington journal" he issue of the ukraine. here are some of your facebook comments.

we invite you to weigh in on the issue. facebook.com/c-span. commentsoday we heard from the dalai lama on capitalism. of lifethat the purpose is to take care of others and have compassion. from the american enterprise institute, this is two hours and 30 minutes.

>> are you ready, your holiness? >> yes, i am ready. >> good morning met everyone. i'm the president of the american enterprise institute. it is a distinct honor and pleasure to be with all of you today, and with his holiness, the dalai lama, and the panelists in this session.

this is a historic day for the american enterprise institute. we are joined with one of the most respected religious leaders theur world to talk about issues that are pressing against us in the wake of the international financial crisis. this is a session called moral free enterprise. right now, we have an opportunity at this historic juncture to talk not about money, not just about business practices, but concerns us the most. our friends have shown us very clearly that there are certain things that are most concentric to human happiness that his holiness the dalai lama has talked about for many years. what are they? faith, family, community and the work, not money. president of the american enterprise institute, as an economist, it hurts me to tell

you that money is on the list. yet it is true. why is that? why is work on the list of the most important things for human happiness when it is not money? the answer is earning our success, the belief that we are creating value with our lives, value in the lives of other people. if we can earn our success, if we have the dignities to do this , nothing can hold our world back. the system that we believe can make this possible is under question today. it is under question because people feel legitimately that they have been left behind in the great recession. systemfree enterprise the best system to pursue our happiness, to lead a good life? have we become too materialistic? do we need to reorder our

priorities towards higher ends? we have a panel of experts to discuss this with his holiness. bybegin with, we are joined none other than the dalai lama. we are all aware of that. the 14th dalai lama became the leader of the tibetan buddhist faith in 1950. he was forced to leave tibet because of persecution and since that time he has maintained the tibetan government in exile in india. he travels the world almost all year round advocating for the .elfare of the tibetan people teaching tibetan buddhism and talking about the importance of compassion as a source of a happy human life. we're also joined by three leaders.

>> it means being happy and well through auspicious miss. >> i love that. some of thed by most distinguished members of our academic and business committee. glenn hubbard is the dean of the columbia business school. loeb, theis dan founder of the hedge fund. on the far end is jonathan height.

men have donehese foundational work in their respective areas. this is about the nature of human happiness and the morality of the free enterprise system. each one will get their perspective. if we have time, we will have some questions from the audience. we will follow this with a second session from our wonderful friends. this organization is completely changed the debate about the conjunctions between psychological life, the human brain, and the nature of the truly flourishing existence. we have a lot in store for you today and we are delighted to be with you and his holiness. would you like to start with some opening remarks?

nothing? starts, soa new day i am moving forward. seek apose is to try to happy life, and happy individual. community.y, happy ultimately, a happy world. we are part of the world. happy world from government through the united nations, from

humanity is a combination of 7 billion individuals. work must start from individuals. then, from all sides. that is most important. i said, good. then he said, some people, not very happy because they are too much politicians. responded, on that level.

look with no demarcation, no differences. too much emphasis on the secondary level. different nationalities, different belief. even the same beliefs, the same nationality. family,is in the differences. even one individual, lots of differences. morning thinking, something different. , new experience, the differences.

humanity is facing some problems , because of climate change, due to global warming. think comes. i that also because of the population increasing. i think not like ancient times. ancient times, certainly, native peoples lives peacefully, and some people come from outside, ok. build this new wonderful nation.

that situation is completely changed. reality -- so our thinking, we and they, , we must consider -- so no problem. [laughter] say --ou

clear. we have to see history about the future of humanity, at least distantly. now we already entered the 21st century. the remaining part of the , to become something very -- also should bey -- centuryast century, a of file and, a century of war. this century should be the century of peace, not from the

sky. the violence, we created it. peace only comes through our action, not through prayer. life, i devote four or five hours to meditation. willll your wish materialize through prayer, i do not believe. your action is more important. buddhism does not give you what you want. you must make effort. so the buddha says you are your own master. those who believe in a creator

-- since we are all created by god, so we have some spark of god. concept -- and then what is the nature of god? that, yoully believe must be a more compassionate person. -- full of anger. no. full of compassion. creatures must follow an example. it is wonderful.

, whethera nonbeliever they believe in a religion or .ot, they are human beings have created we human affection and everybody has come from -- in our life, the beginning of our life, a mother's affection is so important. receivedple who maximum affection have the best -- in the early age, childhood, early age, i think deep inside much happier than those

individuals who at an early age had a lack of affection, from a parent, particularly from the mother, and then i think all their life, deep inside, some sensemother, of incredulity. believer or nonbeliever, we all have the same potentials in becoming more compassionate persons. for that, i think -- through say,iment, they have to more things to say. also learning from them.

forward to the discussions. thank you. you, your holiness. we will now turn to our panel to provoke some of the wisdom of his holiness on the basis of what their work is showing to them today about our economic system, the world economic crisis, about the morality of our system, and a better world. we will start with glenn hubbard, dean of the business will at columbia university, the chairman of the president's you. we will now turn to our panel to council of economic advisers under president bush, and is the author of many books. >> thank you very much, and, your holiness, i know we are grateful to you for this engagement. arthur, i am grateful to you because frankly you're work is taking economics out of abysmal and bring it back to happy, so that is a good thing. i wanted to talk about a

five-step argument that i have made in my professional career's research for the reality of economic success of the free enterprise system. my charges in the university are largely young business people, but i confess my favorite teaching is to slip into freshman principles of economics and talk to the youngest students. i say to them i'm coming with two questions, and they were the questions -- why is not the whole world rich? a very deep question. easy to say. the second is, what could we do to achieveunder mass prosperityn any society? i tell them if they will hang with me, we will answer the questions. first point is free and the my -- free enterprise economies has demonstrated absolute and relative success in generating prosperity and writ alleviating -- and alleviating poverty. economists will say the first,

second, third industrial revolutions were made possible by economic institutions by the support of property rights and the defense of individual economic freedom. we have seen that extreme poverty alleviation in china, india, and sub-saharan africa has been made possible not a government action, but by and opening up markets and the restoration of individual freedom in commerce. on the negative side, we have the spectacular economic failure of the soviet union's collapse and the clear case study of north korea's ongoing failure, having started in the same place as south korea. the second point i would make that free enterprise is critical for the economic success that confront both the market goals that many industry work on and did very important social goals that his holiness brought up in his remarks. entrepreneurs are not people who are directed. they are people who have an uncoordinated search for

opportunity, and market-oriented financial systems do to great things. prosperity bynce investing in firms to become successful, and frankly, by allowing weak or outmoded firms to fail, they advance society. economists talk about creative distraction, but i would like to talk about nondestructive creation, brand-new things that create visions. is the source of innovation and whether. it is about happiness. but columbia colleague ned phelps has noted many times that satisfaction in an economy is highly positively correlated with measures of its dynamism. third point is i have many concerns for status economies today, for the lack of incentives for innovation, for entrepreneurship,, consumption possibilities and living

standards lagging. additional approaches to foreign aid in those societies are relative to encouragement of business or entrepreneurship that largely failed, and large in fightt roles corruption. that is a lesson that this country needs to take heed of as well. i would also say capitalist economies face a number of cautions. we have been very good at generating average growth, but not everyone is average. economic inclusion by which i would mean the ability to obtain meaningful work is an objective that has to be maintained with dynamism. isocial safety net important, but what is all the more important is the latter to get to work -- ladder to get to work. work is the symbol of advancing social mobility and economic mobility.

free enterprise society's need to complicate a marshall plan almost within itself this -- within themselves to increase opportunities. the final point i would make is that while economists talk about economic efficiency or prosperity in economic terms, i think one can go back to adam smith and classical writers in my profession to make the defense a moral one. smith called natural liberty the power to buy and sell, take or leave a job, and make a deal with whomever you like. that is not just a feature of commerce. it is a feature of a moral society. of aty is also a symbol free enterprise society. markets remote neutral respect for each other's talent, for each other's energy, and hard work. many times and

said it well that earned success is an important moral and satisfaction objective of just about gdp. i would leave you with a couple of thoughts. free enterprise societies tend to be societies that have more powersed power, where the is spread out evenly in the population and not with a single controlling government or central planning. central planning systems are less likely to reform, to adapt, to be present in the modern world, and a free enterprise economy has that natural offer. our goal ought to be to of freee the success enterprise economies, but stretch that goal of success to an idea of massive prosperity. i think that goal is morally right. i also think it is economically achievable. >> thank you, glenn hubbard. hubbard hass, dr.

told us that the free enterprise system is naturally the most moral of economic systems, but that we have much more to do to include more people with its blessings around the world. do you agree with this, and how can we make it more effective? yes. mentioned --ou >> one of the questions you asked your students, one was why aren't everybody rich, why haven't we been able to make everybody rich? wondering, what sort of criteria are you using in terms of being rich? >> all i meant by the statement

was the idea that why isn't the whole world as prosperous as the most prosperous countries? why is it that the united states is a rich country, when other countries are not? it is a hard question. as use the word "rich"," that meeting rich, billionaire, that is impossible. perhaps millionaire. just as difficult. so that is a nonobjective point. every human being today has , individual

initiative. as i mentioned before. therefore, i think the whole world witnesses centralized --nomies, no matter how much the former soviet union. and also china. to compare to more new patterns, that is more or less the capitalist system. i think things have been very, very realistic, so we accept the reality. so that really brought real prosperity.

time, the capitalist countries, the united states, rich and poor. i do not know these things. nehru, heer emphasized democratic social systems, the business of control by the government. then something changed. that is a fact, reality shows the socialist thinking. [indiscernible] just simply the only capitalist

-- findw we have to sort of more of that. we need more of a sense of ,oncern of other human beings as i mentioned before. and finally, a sense of humanity, a concern of humanity ss the basis of sense of onene of humanity. and of course all of our activities, the motivation, become constructive, if there is some sort of -- on the negative side things happen, and then dean's change and multiply. i myself, i do not know. spend at least two

years study about world economics and become a student of you. impossible to make such a precise economy. we see the beginnings of a joint op-ed here. >> we turn next to the perspective of business and dan leob, the founder and chief executive officer of third point capital, a hedge fund deeply involved in the finance system here in the united states. he has done work on both eastern and western thought and practiced it extensively in his own life. he will give us his perspectives on what we see in america's business community today. >> thank you, and i want to say

your holiness, it is in an incredible honor to be here with you here today, the spiritual leader of the tibetan people. i grew up with my dad who would have been about your age today, if he had been alive. he would he so proud to see his son up here with you. i carried his spirit with me. it is incredible to be here with the spiritual leader of the capitalist people, arthur brooks. [laughter] i am not sure my dad would be quite so proud of that -- [laughter] so i started my fund in 1995 with $3 million under management . it has grown a bit over the years. i started in june of that year, and started practicing yoga a

few months before that. my yoga teacher is here in the background. about five months after starting other peoples money under my management, my yoga teacher convinced me to go to india to study yoga with a a month.r it was an unusual decision. i got a call from one of my friends, a competitor in the business, who said do not do that, that is a huge mistake. people with think you are a flick for leaving your business, india, study yoga for a month, and mind you there were no internet connections then myself and services was nonexistent. well-founded.ere i went anyway. i had a great month there. it launched me into a lifelong passion for spirituality, for and iplation, meditation,

just want to say that contemplate mission -- cut ablation and meditation, it is not just for monks and hermits. there really for people, it can improve all of our lives, and improve us as business people as well. i will talk a little bit about specifics around that. how going to talk about contemplation makes us better isision makers and why that important in our system. and then i am going to close talking a little bit about my experiences on the frontlines lines of the financial markets and how it's all kind of goes together. just a couple quick lessons from yoga. why it is been crucial as an investor in being a better decision-maker. one of the first lessons you yoga -- which,

means yoga quiets the fluctuations of the mind, which is consistent with what his holiness says that you cannot be happy if your mind is not at ease. the second thing that is important that we learn from yoga is put ourselves into and to dealsitions -- to be able to create a sense of equanimity in those difficult decisions, in those difficult situations so you can persevere and emerge from those situations making good choices. i was with a navy seal last night who told me about his training and how it forces them to learn a skill. that is appropriate for a warrior, but in life there's other types of training, and what the dalai lama teaches and what i learned from yoga is applicable for all of us to be better decision-makers.

to the rightetting outcome. one of the things we learned from yoga and mrs. in the upanishads -- and this is in the upanishads, life is described as a wheel with many spokes that come out of it. at the center of it is your heart, which is your moral grounding. society,f us, in our that is critical, that when we make choices they come not just from a standpoint of what is going to create a favorable outcome, but as the dalai lama said yesterday, make sure that we make decisions that do no harm, make sure that we make decisions that are consistent with our moral framework, what ever that might be. so how has this helped me as a businessperson? --the one hand, we have the i looked at three types of decisions that we make.

one is the very core foundational decisions which are easy, you are honest, you do not hurt people, treat people as you would like, whatever your framework is. the second our decisions which we can turn to a framework, it might be in sports, you're going down a hill. there is a framework for how you ski, bend your legs, distribute your weight, or in business you may have things that you have seen time and time again and can do things consistent with that pattern. then there's the third type of decisions. we all have them in our own world. for me it is trading decisions. some of them might fall into very consistent patterns that we have seen before, but a lot of times it is new territory for us. that is where this practice enables us to be more creative, to be intuitive, to make these better decisions is really important. lucky as the dalai

lama said, we live in a system the individual. not all systems, not all countries give us those choices. so glenn talked about the dispersion of power. that is a key. having a system in which power is dispersed and puts down to the individual makes for a more effective country, more effective organizations, but you also have to trust individuals to make good decisions. i'm going to turn it here to capital markets and why this relates. i am in the business of making longdecisions all day about people, about mark critz, about stocks, all kinds of different things. -- about markets, about stocks, all kinds of different things. i want to talk about markets and how relates to prosperity and flourishing and why the markets

actually make the world a better place. i think there's a common view that financial markets are good in the sense that if somebody has a new idea and there is a venture capitalist, they can invest in the idea, and that man or woman can create a business around that, innovation, and growth, and new things will come . you get iphones out of that system, medical advances, everything from fedex to you name it, businesses have been started from this framework, and that is key. everybody appreciates the importance of robust venture capital market, ipo market for that to happen. that is the tip of the iceberg. without a system that also , is another credit

part because once you start a business, you need credit, but these do not come out of thin air. it is not just like banks. stations are run by people, make decisions to invest in equity, to invest in credit. we need a couple conditions for that. one, we need robust financial markets where there is liquidity, and a person who $10,000, $20,000is a potential for the ipo and for it to go public and down the line the person who buys those shares needs to feel comfortable that there is a rule of law and perfect governments. -- governance. sometimes people think they live in isolation, and missed the importance of all of this. two key concepts. one is liquidity and one is the available -- availability of low-cost capital. those two things are critical ingredients to the system that

we have. they only exist if you have the rule of law. if you have people that feel confident in the system that we have. you will see situations where creditors are treated badly, and you might feel like who are those creditors, a bunch of vultures, they do not deserve to get their money back, let's change the rules now. those aresay unappealing people who are buying the credit and hanging them out to dry. the problem is the people who suffer are not just the investors in that particular credit situation. it is the entire system, because the entire system relies on the rule of law and the dependability and the knowledge that if they do not get their money back there is a system where they can rehabilitate and restructure whatever it is they have invested in. there's also the benefit of people who invest their capital. for example, the people